Since good
literature transports the reader to immersion, absorption and sensation of
plot, the successful literary experience often unveils a segment of the self's
concealed character. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World immerses the
reader in a State scientifically constructed to produce perpetual happiness
without hardship. Six centuries into the future, a world leader has designed
a civilization flabbily devoid of balancing challenges by eliminating illness,
geriatrics, fear of death, passion and love, parenting, poverty, and pursuit
of anything. Its inhabitants exist in a bureaucratically controlled state
of stability sans emotion. Brave New World is the citizen's polar
experience to the prehistoric caveman's solitary existence of self. Today
we struggle individually to establish satisfactory symmetry between these
two states of bureaucracy and independence while bench-pressing multi-weighted
challenges. A journey to Brave New World's civilization of the ridiculous
elicits an excellent measure of the 1998 reader's centeredness between the
self's grip of autonomy and its interdependence with State.

Franz Boas, primo cultural
anthropologist, subscribed that studying the varied threads of cultural tapestry
(what's different) facilitates the understanding of culture. Published in
1932, Brave New World presented greater bureaucratic exaggeration
to a general readership unengaged in the battle of the balance. Government
was barely a gadfly on the barbell, while the 1932 self indeed included the
entire village of extended families and neighbors bolstering each other. Sixty-six
years hence, government has infiltrated human life stealthily, while the individual
has gradually isolated itself with a transient society and fast-track economy
bearing down upon the burden-lifter like additional weights. Although hardship
labels remain the same, the 1998 challenge of dealing with these afflictions
is more complex. Health and psychiatric practitioners caution us that balance
is next to godliness. Therefore, we strive in solitude to balance corporate
positions with family disasters, our yin with our yang, our left brains with
our right brains, and most importantly, our debits with our credits.

Our state of autonomy
depends upon our frame of reference, for it is easy to remain autonomous without
adversity. Consider the reaction of the Brave New World reader who
has experienced a loved one's serious illness and painful death as a solitary
struggle to provide emotional, financial and HMO medical support. Through
the assistance of Brave New World, the reader subsequently tours
"The Park Lane Hospital for the Dying, a sixty-story tower of primrose
tiles. The air is continuously alive with gay synthetic melodies. At the foot
of every bed is a television box. 'We try to create a thoroughly pleasant
atmosphere here, something between a first-class hotel and a feely-palace.'
A warm draft of verbena comes blowing through the ventilator and she dreams
of things, transformed and embellished by the soma in her blood." Depending
upon the enormity of the 1998 self's grapple with death, the reaction to Brave
New World's scenario could be one of wistful appreciation.

Similarly, the reader
raised in a Newark project welfare family journeys to a society bereft of
poverty, brutality, unemployment and homelessness, and longingly peruses the
Brave New World brochures soliciting citizenry. "The world's
stable now. People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want
what they can't get. They're well off; they're safe." Conversely, a corporate
visitor earning $350,000 annually in a backstabbing environment struggles
to sustain a certain level of existence for self and family with an roving
eye on the dancing DOW. Boas would declare that these two societal examples
have more in common than they would care to admit. Both weary weight-lifters,
these individuals may opt for early retirement in neighboring Brave New
World condominiums.

Coping with a parent's
senility, fragile health, nursing homes and elder-care trusts, another Brave
New World guest encounters a civilization free of geriatric woes: no
guilt, no anger, no flooding memories of a child, now the parent. At the least,
the reaction to the new society could be quiet contemplation of the parent's
freedom from senility's bondage and the dependent's freedom from obligation's
yoke.

The 1998 reader's psychological
reaction to Brave New World's civilization may be vastly different
from that of a 1932 visitor. Scientifically, sociologically and technologically
our current civilization and Brave New World's society has blended:
test-tube babies and clones, Prozac and Viagra, vanishing
family units, multi-partnered sex with non-committed partners, and technological
governmental invasion. One difference sets us apart from Brave New World
and our 1932 comrades who bench-pressed before us: the bureaucratic isolated
struggle which we wage to manage these complex challenges. Revisiting this
novel in 1998 may be an eye-opening experience for those who have journeyed
there previously. Sojourners may discover softened reactions and startling
reflections as they gauge the price for balancing life's freight. A cavalier
attitude toward certain societal segments could indicate a slip in the score
for self; while an adverse reaction could point to a healthy edge toward autonomy.
As our yoga instructors subscribe, "It's good to check in once in a while."

John's eyes fluttered open and
he cautiously surveyed his surroundings. Where was he taken? Who knocked him
unconscious and carried him from his solitude at the lighthouse? He did not
have to wait long for his answer, when he saw his friend standing over him,
shaking him to awareness.

"It's about time you came to,"
said Bernard Marx, "we've been worrying about you."

Helmholtz laughed as he came
around to the bed John was laying on. "Don't look at us like that, Savage.
We have good news for you."

Bernard wore a smug look on
his face as he told John of their accomplishments. "We have met some
of the most intelligent men of the world here at this island, and we found
a way to overthrow this so called civilized society which has tried to subdue
us one too many times. We destroyed all the soma in London, and right
about now, all England is in an uproar. We were able to get you out in time;
before anyone tried to come for you, youíre to blame for all this,
you know."

"Youíre a mighty
unpopular fellow back in London at this moment, Savage," came Mustapha
Mondís voice from the corner. "But anyway, enough of this dallying,
we have work to do."

As John rose from the bed, all
that he was hearing started to sink in. Loss of control in England? Thatís
not what he had intended. The damage was done, though, and Mustapha was right,
they had a lot of work to do. There was no time to waste.

The group consisted of one hundred
fifty seven men and women who had been sent to the island because of their
inability to follow the rules of civilized society, as well as Mustapha, Marx,
Helmholtz, and John. Mustapha was the leader, of course, because he knew all
the laws, and was a natural commander. Together, they planned to destroy the
worldís soma supplies, and all the manufacturing plants.

Once the citizens were cut off from
the drugs, theyíd be more apt to become deconditioned. The next step
would be to teach the world of meditation and natural herbs such as St. Johnís
Wort for wellbeing, and to detoxify and preserve their bodies using deep tissue
cleansing techniques and fasting. Schools had to be set up; treatment and
rehabilitation centers had to be opened. The people had to come back to nature.
The human body has been chemically and hormonally abused and altered for so
long, that people were no longer people, they were like machines. Their brains
could not handle the daily traumas, so everyone was taking drugs to mask their
psychosis and depression.

The world then divided into two
societies. The Mond Party and the Bokanovsky Party went to war two years later.
It took that long for the schism to occur, and for the Mond Party to convert
the population. Johnís popularity and Mustaphaís authority caused
a lot of the people to turn against the Bokanovsky civilization. Also, they
were no longer being enticed with drugs.

The war raged on for three long
years, after which time all the modern structures had been destroyed, and
there was nothing left but land and ocean. The few survivors lived off the
land like their ancestors did five thousand years ago. There were no drugs,
no violence, and no corruption. The biggest worries were finding food, shelter,
and clothing. Their conditioning had completely been forgotten long before
the war had ended.

Androniki Servos

A Brave New World: A Comparison of the 90s
and the New World

by Kayee (Michelle) Lee

Writing Workshop II Dr. Julia Evergreen Keefer,
September 17, 1998

To ascertain social stability in the New World,
there is much sacrifice. We will compare certain aspects of the 90s society
to those of the New World. I. The New World II. Mother, Parenting, Families
III. Sex IV. Prejudice and Discrimination V. Power VI. Drug Abuse VII. Sacrifices
VIII. Conclusion - My thoughts IX. Work Cited The New World, a man-made Utopia,
governed by its motto, Community, Identity, Stability (Huxley 3). A man-made
world in every way. Human beings fertilized in bottles. Identity, gender,
intelligence, position in society, all predestined. Human beings classified
in the order of precedence: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon. Every
one conditioned to be a certain way. Every one works for every one else (Huxley,
74). All man-made to ensure social stability. Is society in the New World
truly better than in the 90s? Are people in the New World truly happier than
we are in the 90s? Do we in the 90s have any thing in common with the New
World? Are there significant sociological differences between the 90s and
the New World? These are questions I found myself pondering as I lay down
Aldous Huxley's brilliant A Brave New World.

We have tremendous expectations of our Mothers.
In the 90s, our ideal Mother give life to her child, provides unconditional
love to her child, and nurtures her child. There is a special bond between
a Mother and her child. We have learned to recognize, respect, and appreciate
the self-sacrifices and hardships that a Mother endures for her child. Those
of us less fortunate, craves the love, care, and attention of a good Mother
and good parents. To provide good parenting to our children are the goals
and concerns of every good parents. Parental affection and guidance, or lack
thereof, plays a vital role in our lives. We promote childbirth as a natural,
fulfilling experience for women (Lamaze International, Online). In the New
World, Mother is a smutty word (Huxley 36). Mothers, parents, and families
were taught and understood as viviparous. Our 90s society would appear savage-like
and unstable to the New World's civilized people. "The world was full of fathers
­ was therefore full of misery; full of mothers ­ therefore of every kind
of perversion from sadism to chastity; full of brothers, sisters, uncles,
aunts ­ full of madness and suicide." (Huxley 39). " What with mothers and
lovers, what with the prohibitions they were not conditioned to obey, they
were forced to feel strongly. And feeling strongly (and strongly, what was
more, in solitude, in hopelessly individual isolation), how could they be
stable? (Huxley 41)."

Feeling strongly toward any thing creates individual
instability. Individual instability equals social instability. Civilized people
of the New World are fertilized in bottles; thus, they have no parents. No
parents, no mothers, no families to create emotions and boundaries. Hence,
individual stability. Individual stability equals social stability. Civilized
people, from childhood on, learned from hypnopaedia . Every one, as embryos
were conditioned for their predestined station in life. Everyone will be happy
with their predestined inescapable destiny because they are conditioned to
be. Happiness is part of social stability. The majority of adults in the 90s
hope that our children will practice abstinence. We hope our children will
not have sexual relations at an early age. We hope our children will wait
until they are mature of the mind to understand the responsibilities of sex.
We hope our children will respect their bodies. In our society, promiscuity
is frowned upon. To many of us, monogamy is good. Monogamous relations are
ideal. In the New World, every one belongs to every one else (Huxley, 40).
Every one is for every one else to enjoy. Sex is an act to entertain. Sex
is an act of sharing. Promiscuity is encouraged. Young children are encouraged
to play erotic games. Chastity means passion, chastity means neurasthenia.
And passion and neurasthenia mean instability. There must be plenty of pleasant
vices to have a stable, lasting civilization (Huxley 237).

Yes, prejudice and discrimination exist in our
90s society. We are prejudiced toward those who are different from us. Be
it nationality, appearance, mannerism, sexual preference, or any thing about
an individual that does not resemble the general public. We fear and judge
what is different. So too does prejudice and discrimination exist in the New
World. Character Bernard Marx, an Alpha-Plus, was alienated by the civilized
people because of his Delta-like physique and his lack of promiscuity. In
the New World, each group believes they are superior than the group below
them. "Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because
they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because
I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas.
Gamma are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no,
I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're
too stupid to be able..." (Huxley 27). Discriminatory comments and attitudes
exists. "What a hideous colour khaki is," remarked Lenina, voicing the hypnopaedic
prejudices of her caste (Huxley, 62)."

Men desire power. Throughout history that has
never changed. In the 90s, men strive for success status because success equals
power. Why do people run for government offices? Why do people struggle to
become CEOs? They do so for the recognition of success and the sense of personal
power. Some things never change, for even in the New World, where every one
works for every one else (Huxley 74), men still acknowledge power. "We also
predestine and condition. We decant our babies as socialized human beings,
as Alphas or Epsilons, as future sewage workers or future" He was going to
say "future World controllers," but correcting himself, said "future Directors
of Hatcheries," instead." (Huxley 13). Drug abuse is a continuous fight in
our 90s society. According to the preliminary results of the 1996 National
Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA), the number of illicit drug users for
1996 were 13 million (National Institute of Drug Abuse, Online). Certain reasons
for drug abuse are curiosity, peer pressure, pleasure, and escapism (Europe
Against Drugs, Online). In the New World, everyone takes Soma. Soma is the
New Worldıs escapism and relaxation drug. The civilized people consume Soma
daily even go on Soma holidays. "A gramme in time saves nine," said Lenina
 (Huxley 89)." Soma in many things they consume. Soma in their strawberry
ice-cream (Huxley 81).

Arts, science, religion, history, and individual
love are all things we appreciate and have the freedom to explore in the 90s.
They are the essence of life. They are what make us individuals. They are
what make us individually special. In the New World, all these things which
we hold dear are smut words because they are subversive. It may decondition
the civilized people. These are the cost of stability (Huxley 225). There
is much sacrifice in achieving stability. Happiness is a hard master (Huxley
227). In the New World, happiness is the people's, the state's, and not the
individual's. I found the following quotations sum it up best - Said Mustapha
Mond, "... The greatest care is taken to prevent you from loving any one too
much. There's no such thing as a divided allegiance; you're so conditioned
that you can't help doing what you ought to do. And what you ought to do is
on the whole so pleasant, so many of the natural impulses are allowed free
play, that there really aren't any temptations to resist (Huxley 237)." ...
(John, the Savage) "But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I
want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin." "In fact,"
said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."

"All right then," said the Savage defiantly,
"I'm claiming the right to be unhappy." I see the good of the 90s - the individualism,
the arts, the right to choose my own path in life, the mystery and the right
to love. I see the bad of the 90s - the evil, the illnesses and diseases,
the politics, the social instability. Should we sacrifice the good of the
90s for the social stability of the New World? I want to say that I can not
be certain, for I do believe in different systems, different values. But I
can not say that. I live in the 90s society and I grew up with my own set
of belief. My own ideology. Therefore I have my bias opinion. Isn't social
instability the path to finding true happiness? Without the bad, how will
you recognize the good? If every thing is predestined, what is the purpose
of life? If there is no individual love, what is there to live for? Self-happiness
verses state-happiness. If self-happiness is selfish - then I am.